Contributions to human resources policy from the perspective of four managers from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian health system, recognized as one of the best in the world, is governed by five principles: universality, comprehensiveness, reasonable access, portability and public administration. Canada is divided into provinces that have great administrative autonomy. This article aims to describe and analyze the perspectives of managers in the province of Ontario on the occupation of management positions in the health area. This is a qualitative, descriptive research, having as subjects four managers of the Public Health sector in the province of Ontario, Canada. The data were produced from semi-structured interviews and submitted to content analysis. The project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of São Paulo. In the analyzed material, four categories were organized: recruitment and selection process; criteria for assuming the management position; indication, mediation by trade unions and financing. The following were highlighted by the interviewees: transparency in recruitment and selection, professional support and negotiation with trade unions; the public character assumed in hiring, through disclosure, selection and interviews. The results showed that transparency in recruitment and selection, professional support and the occurrence of negotiations mediated by the unions would allow hiring more adequate to the required professional profile and would favor the quality of life at work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".